Clifton William Weller, Iii, Individually and As Father Andnext Friend of Clifton William Weller, Iv, Minorand Matthew Charles Weller, Minor,plaintiff-appellant, v. Ruth W. Massinga, Individually and in Her Capacity Assecretary of the Department of Human Resources for the Stateof Maryland, George G. Musgrove, Individually and in Hiscapacity As Director of the Baltimore City Department Ofsocial Services, Dorothy Maxine Rosinkski, Individually Andin Her Capacity As Acting Chief, Child Protective Servicesdivision Baltimore City Department of Social Services, Deeann Ritterpusch, Individually and in Her Capacity As Socialworker and Case Worker, Child Protective Services Division,baltimore City Department of Social Services, Beverlywilliams, Individually and in Her Capacity As Social Workerand/or Supervisor, Child Protective Services Division,baltimore City Department of Social Services, Carl Smith,individually and in His Capacity As Social Worker And/orsupervisor, Child Protective Services Division, Baltimorecity Department of Social Services, Michael Mccausey,individually and in His Capacity As Division 1 Chief, Childprotective Services Division, Baltimore City Department Ofsocial Services, Alvin Parks, Individually and in Hiscapacity As Extended Hours Staff Worker, Child Protectiveservices Division, Baltimore City Department of Socialservices, Bonita Winder, Individually and in Her Capacity Asextended Hours Staff Worker, Child Protective Servicesdivision, Baltimore City Department of Social Services,giselle Meeks, Individually and in Her Capacity As Socialservices Administration Worker, Maryland Social Serviceadministration, Betty M. Matthews, Judith Carol Weller,defendants-appellees.anddepartment of Social Services for the City of Baltimore,juvenile Services Administration, Department of Health Andmental Hygiene for the State of Maryland, James S. Becker,individually and His Capacity As Special Assistant Citysolicitor and Attorney for the Department of Social Serviceof Baltimore City, Benjamin Brown, Individually and in Hiscapacity As City Solicitor for the City of Baltimore Lawdepartment, Department of Human Resources for the State Ofmaryland, Frank Farrow, Individually and in His Capacity Asexecutive Director of the Maryland Social Servicesadministration, Carl Cobbs, Individually and in His Capacityas Social Worker, Child Protective Services Division,baltimore City Department of Social Services, Herman Ambrosecornish, Individually and in His Capacity As Supervisor,child Protective Services Division, Baltimore Citydepartment of Social Services, Marie B. Morris, Individuallyand in Her Capacity As Extended Hours Staff Worker, Childprotective Services Division, Baltimore City Department Ofsocial Services, Sheila Dennis, Individually and in Hercapacity As District Supervisor, Child Protective Servicesdivision, Baltimore City Department of Social Services, Lisayoung, Individually and in Her Capacity As Screening Staffworker, Child Protective Services Division, Baltimore Citydepartment of Social Services, Richard L. Hamilton,individually and in His Capacity As Acting Director of Thejuvenile Services Administration Department of Health Andmental Hygiene for the State of Maryland, Marilyn Blimline,individually and in Her Capacity As Assistant City Solicitorand Attorney for the Department of Social Services Ofbaltimore City, Defendants.clifton William Weller, Iii, Individually and As Father Andnext Friend of Clifton William Weller, Iv, Minorand Matthew Charles Weller, Minor,plaintiff-appellant, v. Department of Social Services for the City of Baltimore,juvenile Services Administration, Department of Health Andmental Hygiene for the State of Maryland, James S. Becker,individually and His Capacity As Special Assistant Citysolicitor and Attorney for the Department of Social Serviceof Baltimore City, Benjamin Brown, Individually and in Hiscapacity As City Solicitor for the City of Baltimore Lawdepartment, Ruth Massinga, Individually and in Her Capacityas Secretary of the Department of Human Resources for Thestate of Maryland, Departme, 935 F.2d 268 (4th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 935 F.2d 268 (4th Cir. 1991) Submitted March 20, 1991. Decided May 31, 1991

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-89-704-S)

Clifton William Weller, III, appellant pro se.

Mark Jason Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md., for appellees.

D. Md.

No. 91-3006 DISMISSED AND NO. 91-3027 AFFIRMED.

Before CHAPMAN, WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Clifton W. Weller, III, brings two appeals arising out of the district court's orders in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In the first, No. 91-3006, Weller appeals the district court's dismissal of some but not all of the defendants.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 this Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final orders. A final order is one which disposes of all issues in dispute as to all parties. It "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945).

Because the order appealed from is not a final order, it is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court has not directed entry of final judgment as to particular claims or parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), nor is the order appealable under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Finally, the order is not appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Finding no basis for appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

Weller also appeals from the district court's final order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in No. 91-3027. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Weller v. Department of Social Services, CA-89-704-S (D. Md. Jan. 3, 1991). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 91-3006, DISMISSED.

No. 91-3027, AFFIRMED.